Hi Eric,
On Dec 28, 2005, at 22:45, Eric Seidel wrote:
> I would like to echo other's comments, with regard to the uDOM.
> Reading through it, the uDOM seems a particularly odd beast. It
> seems that the SVG specification would be better served to adopt a
> strict (compatible) sub-set of the DOM 3 specification through
> normative reference, and only make additions to the DOM for SVG-
> only attributes and elements. As it stands, the uDOM makes several
> (in the eyes of a desktop browser vendor) duplicative (and therefor
> unwelcome) additions the the DOM. Notably in the areas of text,
> attribute and network communication handling.
>
> I would like to encourage the SVG working group to at least add a
> section further explaining the need for the uDOM as it stands now
> and why the goals of the uDOM (size?) could not have been
> accomplished through the use of a strict-subset of DOM 3.
>
> Furthermore, I would suggest, that if it is the intention of the
> SVG working group to continue requirement of a uDOM implementation,
> that they consider breaking the uDOM out into it's own
> specification, given that it makes generic extensions to DOM3 (like
> "traits"), which should ideally be used by other future languages
> in a CDF environment (such as HTML5/XHTML2.0/MathML).
Several steps have been taken to address your concerns:
- the DOM 3 parts are now used entirely by reference
- we have attempted to clarify various parts of the introduction to
better justify the need for the uDOM
- we're listing a number of parts of the API to be replaced by the
Web APIs WG's work as soon as possible (when and how depends on the
exact timeline)
Regarding sharing a generic style API with other languages, we are
much in favour of doing that in as close a future as can be and
discussion has started along those lines, but until it exists we need
a solution.
Thank you very much for your comments, please let us know shortly if
this does not address your concerns,
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/